About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14
with a clear, credible, concrete, and enforceable plan to deal with the structural deficit lying ahead. you need to do both. that is the only thing that makes any sense. it is the only thing that m akes sense from the standpoint of politics. >> you spoke in 1992 about the campaign, your plan sounded then a lot like some of these bowls simpson's balanced-type plants that are coming out now. you did some of everything. you did not leave out sacred cows. the one that higher taxes, higher gasoline taxes, you wanted the wealthy to pay more weather in higher taxes or not taking entitlements. do you find that willingness to day on the part of candidates to hit all the sacred cows? >> i do not see anybody doing it, do you? if somebody is doing it, i am missing it. i thought they would hope this go away and they could run on all these things when you are talking on the television. >> would it take candidate saying you'd need to do all those things, not just going after entitlements cut domestic spending, defense, but also to raise taxes? you need to do all those things, do you feel? >> we need to do
an impact on solving the deficit and our debt picture in the 1990's? things improved >> i do not want to take credit for it, but i am pleased there is a breathing period where we are going in the right direction. now we have heard it around and it is going through the roof and is inexcusable. what is interesting is that hardly ever gets discussed, and in the papers, on the media, you would think this is front- page news. it is not. >> absolutely no question that his candidacy caused president clinton to make fiscal responsibility and much higher priority. no question. clinton will tell you that. people in his administration will tell you that. he made the difference even though he did not win. the polls will also tell you in july he was leading. in addition, the exit polls will tell you that the people who voted, if they thought they could have won, they would have voted for him and he would have won. much worse today than we were then, and people know it. >> do you think we're much worse today because he was not elected? >> we have lost our way. >> that is history. we're on the edge
of many. a singular focus on employment in the deficit had taken the wind out of the sales of issues such as these, and, yes, they are critical and linked to jobs and social >> we have done six licensing studies, and taken a look at laws and regulations to see what states are doing, and what we found is really not ok. the average score for centers in our reports is 87, which i do not want to get into. it is about 58%. that would be a failing grade in any classroom in america. we just came out with a report. i do not know if you have seen it. it is called "leaving children to chance." this report can add a couple of months ago and it looked at what is happening in homes. 4 d's. one b's, 4 c's, the 10th state, massachusetts, failed, and they were in the top 10. -- i think iith heard the first remarks say investment in child care and early learning. i do not think it is child care and early learning. i think for parents and many children, child care is an early learning program. on average, 11 million kids, about 35 hours a week, so for those lucky enough, 1.3 million children in pre-k
trillion national debt we have runaway deficits each and every year. we need to have the people down there and focus in a bipartisan matter. we do not need blood and teeth in the streets. we need people will find solutions. >> in this state, the legacy of senator kennedy is well known. part of that legacy is being able to compromise and work with republicans. can you name republicans in the senate that you are able to work with on big issues that the country faces? >> probably richard would be one that comes to mind. >> not going to be there. >> that is a problem. >> let me ask the question. are there any republicans that will be in the senate that you fill you can work with substantively and compromise with? >> it depends on what the subject matter is. let me give you an example. on the question of fannie and freddie -- fannie mae and freddie mac. the republicans have said across the spectrum that we need to revise fannie and freddie. i think there are wrong. at the that is an issue i think i could work with virtually every republican in the united states senate because it is an imp
's reduce the deficit in a way that does not stick it to middle class families. i have already worked republicans to cut one trillion dollars in spending and i'm willing to do more. i have a plan for a trillion deficit-reduction. we cannot cut our way to prosperity. we have to cut our tax code and ask the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes. to go back to the same rate when bill clinton was president. when we created 23 million new jobs and the biggest surplus and history, and a lot of millionaires to boot. in fairness, my opponent has a plan when it comes to taxes. but as president clinton said, it does not have an arithmetic. -- any arithmetic. they are selling the idea you could spend trillions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthy. no matter how many times they try to rebuild their campaign, no matter how many times they try to tell you they're going to talk specifics, they do not do it. the reason is because the amount does not work -- the math does not work. they do not explain how tax cuts are going to be put on the table without raising taxes on now class families. th
that deficit financing is the easiest thing to do. it seems free to people. unless we hold congress to budget constraints, and until the american people told congress to budget constraints that are necessary, we will not make progress. the idea, i guess, i know there's a high probability that a can will get kicked again, but i think we have to put pressure on this notion that if politicians really care about being fiscally responsible, they have to actually follow through on their claims that is what they want to do. >> donald, what do you think? you think that congress can do this through a well-organized process, or does this have to happen in a grand bargain that happens relatively quickly? >> it is fun to talk grand bargain. i have been with many of those conversations. it is fun to gather people around the table and give them pizza and coffee and hammer out the grand fiscal bargain. there are several of them out there in various levels of detail. but it remains difficult for me to believe that congress is ready to get there yet, or frankly, that the american people are ready to get there
, and their greatest threat to america is not military, it is the deficit. why do we have a deficit? we have a deficit because of the bushmen in their tax cuts, -- bush millionaires' tax cuts, because they are not paying their fair share of taxes. mitt romney is paying 14% of his income. i do not care how much mr. plummer made, but it is how much he paid. if mitt romney paid 14%, mr. plummer want to go to congress and he wants to write tax policy. don't you think it is fair that he discloses what his tax returns are? [applause] center brady, his running mate, in his failed bid to become lieutenant governor, released his tax returns. he did not pay any federal income tax for two years. what is it that mr. plummer has not paid? >> mr. palmer? >> i will answer the question. if you look and what is happening right now in the united states, if you look at what is happening, you have politicians of both polos -- part is not being honest with the voters. the bush tax cuts -- i will call of the obama tax cuts because they supported the extension. we have a tax code that is more than 72,000 pages, and grows ev
face. too many countries face falling investment, rising food prices, and bigger trade deficits. it is completely wrong to suggest that the arab spring has somehow created these problems. it is a challenging time for the world economy as a whole. there was never going to be an economic transformation overnights. a far from being successful, open market-based economies, many of these countries were be set by the vested interests, corruption, and unaccountable institutions. and this created a double problem. and not just a fragile economies, but worse, people who were told they had experienced free enterprise and open markets when they had experienced nothing of the sort. we must help these countries on wind of this legacy of corruption, military expenditure they cannot afford, natural resources unfairly exploited, and what they suffered under for too long. while on the subject of stolen assets, we also have a responsibility to help these countries get back the stolen assets that are rightfully theirs, just as we returned and billions of dollars of assets to libya. it is simply no
that there is no or arithmetic in it. [laughter] they think that somehow you can lower our deficits by spending another $5 trillion on a new tax breaks for the wealthy. but no matter how many times and they try to recruit their campaign and explain it, they cannot. they can't explain how you spend $5 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy without raising taxes on middle-class families. how do you spend it $2 trillion on a new military spending that our military has not asked for and cut our deficits? you cannot do it. the math does not add up. >> president obama at his last campaign stop before tonight's debate. now, mitt romney speaking to reporters on monday. >> now, you know that you are going to get visitors this week. we are going to have a debate. there's a lot of interest surrounding the debate. people want to know who is going to win, who is going to score the punches and who is going to make the biggest difference in the arguments they make, and there is going to be all this scoring of winning and losing. in my view, it is not so much winning and losing or even the people themselves. it is about so
including middle-class tax cuts, responsible deficit reduction, the violence against women act, veteran benefits and protecting medicare. mr. lewis: reserving the right to object. the speaker pro tempore: recognition of members is within the discretion of the chair. the chair is limiting the debate to matters before the house and such request is not in order at this time. parliamentary inquiry. state your inquiry. mr. waxman: during pro forma session, can the chair entertain legislative business, because i have further parliamentary inquiry? if we can take up legislation to create jobs and avoid the fiscal cliff, since we're taking up other items, i would like to know whether we could do business in the house of representatives to address the priorities in this nation. people want jobs. people want the -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a specific parliamentary inquiry? mr. waxman: my specific request is whether during a pro forma session can the chair entertain legislative business? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's asking a question matter scheduling and not re
is liberal to cut spending? i think is liberal to cut taxes when you are operating a deficit, because you are spending money. >> i do not think your labels mean a lot. what i have said from the beginning -- the centerpiece of our problems is the national debt. we simply have to look at this. whether we do it this year because of the way our economy is or next year, $2.3 trillion. >> i want you to respond to this. >> i'm glad there is a clear contrast between the two of us. i do not believe we should raise taxes. i do not think the problem is that americans are not taxed enough. mr. sadler has been very candid that he would consider raising taxes on every single tax and who pays income tax is. >> that is not fair. >> if you would consider allowing all of the bush tax cuts to expire, that would raise taxes on every single tax and who pays income tax. are the texans to pay income taxes we would not raise taxes on? you did not have an answer. >> you will not put words in my mouth. i would say, the first place, we have to balance the budget, cut spending, and raise revenue to reduce the nation
the world to take it or buy treasury notes to fund trillion dollar deficits forever. the economy is slow and going into another dip. i actually think the next president will have a moment between november 7, and i do not know, this summer or fall of 2013 to do a lot. i would bet there is a huge legislative agenda in 2013. i did not really by the gridlock argument. if obama gets reelected, evil have a mandate basically -- he will have a mandate basically the lesser version of bowel- simpson. if romney wins, he will have a mandate for some version of the right and budget, probably tempered a little bit to get democratic votes. if he becomes president, he what the mandate for something close to that. either way, we will probably get a pretty big deal. i think 2013 becomes a big entitlement reform, tax reform, budget reform moment. there will be an amazing pivot on november 7. suddenly the campaign will be over. guess what, we are going to have entitlement reform. all of the things is that about mitt romney will destroy america, suddenly we will do something that will not look that wildly di
and it is produced -- it has produced record-setting deficits and putting us in a path of greece and where much of europe are. the economy is teetering on the edge of recession. the were seen can do is jacked up taxes on small businesses and entrepreneurs or job creators. that makes it all the more likely to push us into a recession. and for the 23 million people who struggling for work, the worst thing to do is hurt the small businesses that create those jobs. >> it is fair to say that the president has reduced taxes. he has reduced taxes for small businesses 18 times. he cut taxes for '95 -- for 95% of families out there. the question is do we ask everybody to sacrifice? when you look at the marginal rate in the united states, when ronald reagan took office, the marginal office with 71% to 72%. it is interesting to me that the greatness that people speak of in terms of the united states, when we talk about the 1940's, the 1950's, the 1960's, 1970's, the marginal rate that folks paid was much greater. nobody says we will go back to that. at the same time, during the clinton years, we had margi
tax dollars per "two things about that -- the fed is reducing the deficit and making huge profits returning record amounts of money to the treasury as a result of all their previous quantitative easing. so the opposite of spending your tax dollars is true. and of course the fed is legally independent and run by guy appointed by george w. bush. so this was so completely over the top that we decided we have to do a piece on that particular e-mail. pretty much these messages to true believers exceed what we have already defunct. >> we are out of time. thank you for your attention. we appreciate your questions. [applause] >> coming at 4:30, we will be live at the un for a speech from the president of libya. he will be speaking before the general assembly gathered this week. coverage starting at 4:30 eastern. we will have that live on c- span. before that, earlier today, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu spoke to the world body. this is just over half an hour. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. president. is a pleasure to see that general assembly presided by the ambassador
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14